Dream on...obama-clinton or clinton-obama are fantasies.  They don't respect one another and that would not be good for our country.

Which pair do you think it will be then?

Hillary would have to pick Obama, or lose the youth vote and many others. Obama/Edwards is the strongest ticket. Hillary is polarizing, and personally, I would not vote for her against McCain--I would just view it as a draw. Obama/Edwards is the strongest ticket the Democrats can get, because Obama has the "youth vote", the "black vote" and he is closing the gap on the "women's vote". All he needs is to tie things up with the "white male vote" and the "union vote" and that is what Edwards brings. Hillary can't offer anything Obama doesn't already have, or isn't gaining. I think Hillary should be focusing on making a deal to become Senate Majority leader as a way to step down from the Presidential race with dignity. I'm being honest, don't scrap your best candidate like you did with Howard Dean, Democrats.

Sincerely,

Swing Vote

Sorry, I might be mistaken, but I thought Edwards bowed out?

Or does that mean just from the presidential race?

It does not matter that Edwards dropped out. Anyone can be selected to be a vice presidential candidate. I do agree with "swing vote" about Hillary choosing Obama as a running mate. Hillary would not be a wise choice for Obama to make as a running mate.

Ah.... Sorry, I thought that once they quit, that is it

Yeah, I frankly, I don't see Obama and Clinton picking each other at all

I disagree with tran58quil, I think Obama and Clinton do respect each other.  I also think a Hillary-Obama ticket would be fabulous.  She's got depth and substance, Obama has got the gift of gab, together they could a lot accomplished.  I also think that would mean more years of democratic leadership...we could have Clinton for 8 years, than Obama for 8 years.  Well, that's my dream story...and I'm sticking to it.  I also think that any ticket with Hillary Clinton on it has a better chance of beating McCain.

My original choice was John Edwards.  I truly believe that he was the one that had the best platform.  But the media effectively blacklisted him, and virtually shaped this race by forcing him to drop out.  

The two media darlings from the beginning were Clinton and Obama.  And if you remember, originally the media treated Clinton as if she were the virtual nominee already.  Interestingly, after Edwards suspended his campaign, the media turned on Clinton, and began to favor Obama.

At the same time, the Republicans were given a much wider berth.  While the media focused on Obama and Clinton as if they were the only democratic candidates, it did a much better job in covering several GOP candidates, e.g., Huckabee, Guiliani, McCain, Romney, and even Paul, to a certain extent.  I found that very telling, and wanted to know why the media, and I mean most forms of the media, from newsprint to internet to tv, would narrow the democratic focus to two candidates, while allowing the republicans a much wider focus, at least three or four of their candidates got coverage.

So I did another search/research stint on who owns the media.  Well, lo and behold, I find that media ownership is even narrower now than it was four years ago.  There are only a handful of people, because it is people that own businesses, that own most of the media outlets.  In fact, it's quite startling just how dangerously small the group of people is that own most of the newspapers, magazines, cable tv stations, etc.

I'm skeptical by nature, and I'm not a big believer in coincidences.  I do believe that the very rich run this and other countries, because that is the logical way of things, particularly as countries/nations age.  Basically, the older a country is, the more likely it's being run by an oligarchy of wealthy elites.  

After seeing who owns the majority of the world's media, not to mention the media in the United States, it's fairly plain to see that the media is now effectively owned and operated by a handful of Republicans and/or Republican supporters.  (I suppose most of these people would be what Bush refers to as his "base").  So, that says to me that the mainstream media in the U.S. has effectively become a sort of "propaganda" arm of the GOP.  

So, if the media is owned and operated by Republicans and Republican-leaning sympathizers, then it would seem that since they focused only on two democrats from the beginning, but not only two republicans, that the GOP wants one of the two to run against their candidate.

That makes good sense, and if I owned a sizable chunk of the country's media outlets, and some of my good buddies owned the rest, I would do the same thing.  I would sit down with them and figure out a way to shape the election so that I would be assured that things wouldn't change too much, my tax cuts would be permanent, etc.  That's human nature.

First thing I'd do is not cover anyone who posed a threat and who might actually get elected if the people heard what they had to say.  I believe that's why the media didn't cover Edwards.  Most people today get their news from the mainstream media channels/outlets, so if someone's not covered, then that's that.  

So, if you were the GOP, who would you want your candidate to run against?  If I were a rich, white Republican, I would want my nominee to run against Obama rather than Clinton.

And look what the media has done - as I said, as soon as Edwards was gone, they turned on Clinton like so many ravenous dogs.  Obama is now the "golden boy" so to speak, and he will be until - and if - he gets the nomination.  And then, mark my words,  the media will turn on him, too. 

First, Obama has more of an air of mystery about him than does Clinton.  And I say that only in the context that Obama is not as well known.  Clinton's life is by now an open book.  For example, no one could say that Clinton was an atheist, but there is the question of just what kind of church does Obama belong to and just what religion is he?  Already the rumors of him being Muslim are circulating.  And if that's not an election breaker in post-9/11 America, I don't know what would be.   

Second, Obama is a good talker, but there's not alot of substance behind what he says.  He avoids casting controversial votes in the Senate by simply not showing up to vote, for one thing, and that will be capitalized on by the media.  He talks about bringing change (exactly what Bush said) and that he would unite Democrats & Republicans (again, exactly what Bush said), but Obama doesn't say specifically WHAT change he will bring, or HOW.  Again, just like Bush in 2000.  

And that scares me.  Can Americans be stupid enough to fall for the same line of crap that Bush handed out in 2000?  Apparently so.  Score one for the gipper...literally.

While I have not been a Clinton supporter, I have to say that her plans are laid out for all to see; unlike Obama, who has not said anything specific, even on his website.  He spouts lofty rhetoric, platitudes, and alludes to himself as another MLK or JFK, but he is neither.  And frankly, he offends me by pretending to be either.

Third, Obama is, I think, rather naive.  What Clinton says really is true - Obama just doesn't have the experience that she does.  And as a former first lady, Hillary Clinton does have the unique advantage of knowing upclose and personal, just what it takes to be president.  She also has inside knowledge of the goings on behind closed doors of politics - something Obama could not have had access to.  So, in that respect, she would be more prepared on that first day, to lead the country.  

And that brings me to another point - Clinton is a doer.  Obama is a talker.  Americans rejected Kerry because of his lofty rhetoric, but they love Obama for it?  That is illogical.  Take the media variable out of it and you'll see why.  The media crucified Kerry for the same thing they praise Obama for - but that praise won't last.  What will happen when the media turns on Obama?  He won't know how to handle it.  He won't understand why he went from the golden boy who could say nothing wrong to the underdog who can say nothing right - but that is what will happen.

Clinton, on the other hand, will let those media attacks roll of her like water off a duck.  She's been there done that so many times that it must just be second nature to her by now.  I do have to give her credit for that.  

I think Hillary Clinton is a stronger individual than Barack Obama is.  I think Clinton truly has the best interests of the American people at heart, and I think she's a shrewd person who knows how to get what she wants.  It's just too bad she doesn't own the media who have effectively set her up for a big fall.  

And the voters are playing right into the GOP's hands.

If McCain is the GOP nominee, which it is likely he will be, especially now that he's been endorsed by King George Bush, then you can take that to the bank.  

I believe that McCain and the GOP will chew Obama up and spit him out.  I think they'd try to do that to Clinton, but they'd have a harder time.  Just about everything they could say about her has to do with her husband, and she could and would rightly say that Bill isn't running this time around.  She's not Bill, so it's all a moot point.  And what could the GOP say to that, really?

Plus, Clinton is well-known globally for her work on human and women's rights.  What has Obama done, in that respect?  I haven't heard him saying too much about the genocide in Dafur, have you?  Have you seen or heard of him taking a stand on poverty, human rights, or anything substantial?  

NO, NO, NO.  That's one of the reasons he's tried to play it safe.  By not voting against GOP bills, or for Democratic ones, and I'm talking the controversial bills, he's played it safe and not taken a stand.

But do we want, or deserve, a president who's NEVER TAKEN A STAND?  On anything?

No, I don't think so.  I think that after 8 years of the most selfish, corrupt, greedy, immoral, deceitful, and treasonous representation in Washington that I can remember in my lifetime (going back to Truman's tenure), Americans deserve a president who has something specific, substantive, and strong to say about the way things should be.  I don't see that person as Obama.

The way I see it, McCain will win against Obama, Clinton would win against McCain, albeit barely.  As much as I like Edwards, I almost think at this point that a Clinton/Obama ticket could be the answer, since Democrats are so polarized at this point.  That would virtually guarantee a huge Democratic voter turnout in November, and a virtual Dream Team ticket that McCain couldn't hold a candle to, regardless of whom he picked as a running mate.  BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if McCain picks Jeb Bush as the other half of his ticket.

Voters, beware.  America's future is in your hands.   

My original choice was John Edwards.  I truly believe that he was the one that had the best platform.  But the media effectively blacklisted him, and virtually shaped this race by forcing him to drop out.  

The two media darlings from the beginning were Clinton and Obama.  And if you remember, originally the media treated Clinton as if she were the virtual nominee already.  Interestingly, after Edwards suspended his campaign, the media turned on Clinton, and began to favor Obama.

At the same time, the Republicans were given a much wider berth.  While the media focused on Obama and Clinton as if they were the only democratic candidates, it did a much better job in covering several GOP candidates, e.g., Huckabee, Guiliani, McCain, Romney, and even Paul, to a certain extent.  I found that very telling, and wanted to know why the media, and I mean most forms of the media, from newsprint to internet to tv, would narrow the democratic focus to two candidates, while allowing the republicans a much wider focus, at least three or four of their candidates got coverage.

So I did another search/research stint on who owns the media.  Well, lo and behold, I find that media ownership is even narrower now than it was four years ago.  There are only a handful of people, because it is people that own businesses, that own most of the media outlets.  In fact, it's quite startling just how dangerously small the group of people is that own most of the newspapers, magazines, cable tv stations, etc.

I'm skeptical by nature, and I'm not a big believer in coincidences.  I do believe that the very rich run this and other countries, because that is the logical way of things, particularly as countries/nations age.  Basically, the older a country is, the more likely it's being run by an oligarchy of wealthy elites.  

After seeing who owns the majority of the world's media, not to mention the media in the United States, it's fairly plain to see that the media is now effectively owned and operated by a handful of Republicans and/or Republican supporters.  (I suppose most of these people would be what Bush refers to as his "base").  So, that says to me that the mainstream media in the U.S. has effectively become a sort of "propaganda" arm of the GOP.  

So, if the media is owned and operated by Republicans and Republican-leaning sympathizers, then it would seem that since they focused only on two democrats from the beginning, but not only two republicans, that the GOP wants one of the two to run against their candidate.

That makes good sense, and if I owned a sizable chunk of the country's media outlets, and some of my good buddies owned the rest, I would do the same thing.  I would sit down with them and figure out a way to shape the election so that I would be assured that things wouldn't change too much, my tax cuts would be permanent, etc.  That's human nature.

First thing I'd do is not cover anyone who posed a threat and who might actually get elected if the people heard what they had to say.  I believe that's why the media didn't cover Edwards.  Most people today get their news from the mainstream media channels/outlets, so if someone's not covered, then that's that.  

So, if you were the GOP, who would you want your candidate to run against?  If I were a rich, white Republican, I would want my nominee to run against Obama rather than Clinton.

And look what the media has done - as I said, as soon as Edwards was gone, they turned on Clinton like so many ravenous dogs.  Obama is now the "golden boy" so to speak, and he will be until - and if - he gets the nomination.  And then, mark my words,  the media will turn on him, too. 

First, Obama has more of an air of mystery about him than does Clinton.  And I say that only in the context that Obama is not as well known.  Clinton's life is by now an open book.  For example, no one could say that Clinton was an atheist, but there is the question of just what kind of church does Obama belong to and just what religion is he?  Already the rumors of him being Muslim are circulating.  And if that's not an election breaker in post-9/11 America, I don't know what would be.   

Second, Obama is a good talker, but there's not alot of substance behind what he says.  He avoids casting controversial votes in the Senate by simply not showing up to vote, for one thing, and that will be capitalized on by the media.  He talks about bringing change (exactly what Bush said) and that he would unite Democrats & Republicans (again, exactly what Bush said), but Obama doesn't say specifically WHAT change he will bring, or HOW.  Again, just like Bush in 2000.  

And that scares me.  Can Americans be stupid enough to fall for the same line of crap that Bush handed out in 2000?  Apparently so.  Score one for the gipper...literally.

While I have not been a Clinton supporter, I have to say that her plans are laid out for all to see; unlike Obama, who has not said anything specific, even on his website.  He spouts lofty rhetoric, platitudes, and alludes to himself as another MLK or JFK, but he is neither.  And frankly, he offends me by pretending to be either.

Third, Obama is, I think, rather naive.  What Clinton says really is true - Obama just doesn't have the experience that she does.  And as a former first lady, Hillary Clinton does have the unique advantage of knowing upclose and personal, just what it takes to be president.  She also has inside knowledge of the goings on behind closed doors of politics - something Obama could not have had access to.  So, in that respect, she would be more prepared on that first day, to lead the country.  

And that brings me to another point - Clinton is a doer.  Obama is a talker.  Americans rejected Kerry because of his lofty rhetoric, but they love Obama for it?  That is illogical.  Take the media variable out of it and you'll see why.  The media crucified Kerry for the same thing they praise Obama for - but that praise won't last.  What will happen when the media turns on Obama?  He won't know how to handle it.  He won't understand why he went from the golden boy who could say nothing wrong to the underdog who can say nothing right - but that is what will happen.

Clinton, on the other hand, will let those media attacks roll of her like water off a duck.  She's been there done that so many times that it must just be second nature to her by now.  I do have to give her credit for that.  

I think Hillary Clinton is a stronger individual than Barack Obama is.  I think Clinton truly has the best interests of the American people at heart, and I think she's a shrewd person who knows how to get what she wants.  It's just too bad she doesn't own the media who have effectively set her up for a big fall.  

And the voters are playing right into the GOP's hands.

If McCain is the GOP nominee, which it is likely he will be, especially now that he's been endorsed by King George Bush, then you can take that to the bank.  

I believe that McCain and the GOP will chew Obama up and spit him out.  I think they'd try to do that to Clinton, but they'd have a harder time.  Just about everything they could say about her has to do with her husband, and she could and would rightly say that Bill isn't running this time around.  She's not Bill, so it's all a moot point.  And what could the GOP say to that, really?

Plus, Clinton is well-known globally for her work on human and women's rights.  What has Obama done, in that respect?  I haven't heard him saying too much about the genocide in Dafur, have you?  Have you seen or heard of him taking a stand on poverty, human rights, or anything substantial?  

NO, NO, NO.  That's one of the reasons he's tried to play it safe.  By not voting against GOP bills, or for Democratic ones, and I'm talking the controversial bills, he's played it safe and not taken a stand.

But do we want, or deserve, a president who's NEVER TAKEN A STAND?  On anything?

No, I don't think so.  I think that after 8 years of the most selfish, corrupt, greedy, immoral, deceitful, and treasonous representation in Washington that I can remember in my lifetime (going back to Truman's tenure), Americans deserve a president who has something specific, substantive, and strong to say about the way things should be.  I don't see that person as Obama.

The way I see it, McCain will win against Obama, Clinton would win against McCain, albeit barely.  As much as I like Edwards, I almost think at this point that a Clinton/Obama ticket could be the answer, since Democrats are so polarized at this point.  That would virtually guarantee a huge Democratic voter turnout in November, and a virtual Dream Team ticket that McCain couldn't hold a candle to, regardless of whom he picked as a running mate.  BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if McCain picks Jeb Bush as the other half of his ticket.

Voters, beware.  America's future is in your hands.   

I think your call on the media is fairly accurate.  After the debate today (Thursday), I listened to all the "talking heads".  The Clinton bashing is unbelievable and they keep talking about what a tough road she has and

Dear Kentucky Woman,My last thread got cut off...I

I hope this thread doesn't get cut off...you bring up a great point about the media.  I also agree with you on Edwards, he was a good candidate.  Your point about the "powers to be" behind the media wanting Obama to win because he will be the weaker candidate against McCain has a lot of validity.   I think if Hillary is the frontliner on the ticket, she has a better chance to win over possible McCain voters..they hate his stand on Iraq.  I don't know if Obama can win against McCain, and I do think Obama is naive. Based on record, I'm definitely rooting for Hillary.

A Clinton-Obama/Obama-Clinton ticket would be more symbolic of the national experience than we think. In their ability or inability to shelve their egos and resolve their differences, or at least table them for the good of party unity, Clinton and Obama, a white woman and a black man, will symbolize the triumphs and setbacks of the American racial dynamic. That’s why this is the Democratic ticket — why, frankly, it has to be the ticket. It organically capitalizes on the historic dimensions of this presidential campaign year; it’s nothing less than a literal expression of the persistent American racial metaphor. Their success in working together, or their failure to work together, mirrors our own. 

Choosing another running mate will also invariably force either Obama or Clinton as the nominee to recalibrate the expectations of the millions of his/her supporters, frustrating passions, and maybe loyalties, built up throughout the campaign. And as to the matter of chemistry, how well the nominee gets along with someone else as a running mate would be as uncertain as how well the nominee would relate to the candidate he or she has been debating for the past year. It would be trading relative certainties for relative risk.

“Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t,” goes the old saying — one that has more applications in American politics than maybe we’d like to admit. But maybe it’s not as downbeat as all that. Our political history has numerous examples of once-bitter campaign rivals setting aside their petty squabbles to join forces to accomplish something bigger and more important than they are. In the runup to the Republican Convention in 1980, George Bush (#41) was the bitter foe of Ronald Reagan, and the one who coined the term “voodoo economics” to castigate Reagan’s economic policies as a candidate. Come the convention, the two men mounted the stage at the convention arm in arm — as running mates. The rest is history, two terms of it, in the White House.

It strains credulity to think that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton aren’t capable of making the same sacrifices to get to the same address. What's important is putting a Democrat in the White House. And they both know it. 

Sorry. Obama cannot be seriously considered for any ticket whatsoever. See http://www.stop-obama.org to see what I mean.

That site is B.S. and was probably set up by republicans . I don't take anything on it to be truthful. I'm a Clinton supporter and I still think it's B.S..

I've got to throw in my 2cents again.

First, I agree with Hawaii Person that McCain will have a tougher time against Clinton than Obama.  Even though we do not know for sure how he would have voted - for or against - the Iraq war, he's been very vocal and indeed, it seems to be the cornerstone straw that he's grasping to pound Clinton by vehemently claiming that he was against the war from the beginning and he wouldn't have voted to invade.

Put that up against a guy who spent 5 years in a freakin' BOX as a POW....

Think about it.  McCain will start bringing up Obama's naivete.  Plus, since G.W. has already endorsed McCain, you can bet your booties that he/his people will have a heavy hand in running McCain's campaign.  And again, I would not be at all surprised to hear McCain announce Jeb Bush as his running mate.  I personally think McCain's being drugged.   Really, though, who knows why he's changed his tune this last year or so to become a Bush-doggie.  

Lofty speeches won't amount to a hill of beans when McCain starts ripping Obama a new one.  The media will turn on Obama, and some of his supporters, the less committed, will lose interest and disengage.  And there won't be anything to be done about it. 

Obama will play right into the GOP's hands.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, won't even flinch.  By God, she's been accused of murder and been investigated by a Special Counsel by the GOP!  If that didn't send her running, I doubt anything McCain has to throw at her will.  Her life is pretty much an open book, so there won't be any surprises.

Not so, with Obama.  His religious beliefs are suspect.  His wife might be a racist.  His business dealing with Rezko are also suspect, and these are just three things the GOP will have a field day batting about.

He is a good motivator.  She is a good planner and implementer.  She would be the better leader; he would be better as VP, and then after 8 years, he could run as Pres.

Although, I'd also be very happy with a Clinton/Edwards ticket, as well.  Those two seem better suited, but I think because the country's so polarized, it would be better for a Clinton/Obama ticket.

Someone else here made an eloquent point: that a ticket with a white woman and a black man would be representative of real change in and of itself.  I also think it would be a dream ticket, and I think it is possible.

I think it is more possible if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination.  She's smart, very smart.  And I think she knows that that combination would be a closer for american voters.

Obama, on the other hand, isn't so smart.  He's more self-aggrandizing - and I think he would have the arrogance to think that he could do it on his own, without help from Clinton.

On the other hand, I think Clinton knows she could do it on her own, but that it would be a much, much easier ride if she had Obama on the ticket.

I guess time will tell and we shall see.

But I predict that if Obama gets the nomination, he will not ask Hillary to be VP.  He will not win against McCain.  And if McCain has Jeb Bush run with him, as I well think he might - I believe he might have made that "deal with the devil" to get G.W. Bush's endorsement.  Then we'll see one term, maybe, for McCain, unless he "mysteriously" dies or succumbs to cancer or some other disease before then.  And then we'll have "Brother Jeb."

In case you don't know, Jeb is the smart one.  He's much more conservative than W., much more focused, and much more dangerous = EVIL.  If he ever gets in the White House, pack your bags and leave the country.  Because your country, as you know it, will be gone forever.

Clinton will put up one heck of a fight against McCain, and whoever he picks to run with him.  And she'll win.  She'll win on Iraq BECAUSE she voted to go to war!  She will be seen as tough, not afraid to go to war, when appropriate.  But she can also say that Congress was deceived (which in my mind brings up the word "impeachment", but that's another matter.  Still, if anyone would be willing to impeach Bush, should they be in the proper position, it would be Hillary!)  She can also make the case that there wasn't enough forethought, we've created Al Quaeda bases in Iraq, where there were none before, etc., etc.  

ONLY she could get away with that because she ONCE supported the war.  Obama would come off as weak and ineffectual. Hillary would come off as strong, wise, and innovative.

To me, it's just a no-brainer, but as I said, some people just let that wool get pulled down over their eyes. 

Kentuckywomen2 I'd like to know if you are going to vote for Obama if he gets the nomination? I know you are a big critic of him, but I hope if it comes down to Obama VS McCain you will vote for Obama. I'm a big Clinton supporter, but I also like Obama. I know he does not bring as much to the WH as Hillary but he's a hell of a lot better than McCain. I would have to disagree with you about Obama's Wife. I have not seen any racism whatsoever from her. I like her straight forwardness.

I will vote for whoever happens to be the democratic nominee in the general election.

I don't like Obama's wife; I've been offended by a couple of remarks she's made.

I guess we'll see what today will bring.